This excerpt is taken from Sheikh Irshad-ul-Haq Asri's book Islam and Music: A Review of Ishraq's Objections.
Regarding what we have presented about the mudallis or mixed narrations in the Sahihayn, observe the sophistry of the Ahl al-Ishraq, who write:
Maulana (the author) states: The munn'an (repeated) narrations of the mudallis in the Sahihayn are, according to the majority, to be understood as being based on sama' (hearing directly), but where conclusive evidence proves discontinuity, denying it is merely based on argumentation and obstinacy. However, in this regard, generally the earlier scholars, the muhaddithin who had a vast collection of hadith, will be more acceptable than the later ones; the words of just anyone should not be given any credence.
Reference: (Tawdhih: p.302 vol.2)
Will the respected Maulana clarify that if the investigation of the two Sheikhs (Bukhari and Muslim) regarding the munn'an narrations of the mudallis is indeed conclusive, then how has the possibility arisen in some narrations that discontinuity is proven by conclusive evidence? And when at some places the denial of discontinuity is merely based on argumentation and obstinacy, then what is the proof that at other places, which could not be discussed among the muhaddithin due to reliance on or lack of attention to the two Sheikhs, considering continuity as final is not mere good faith and imitation?
Reference: (Ishraq: pp.30-31)
Firstly: It is submitted that the author mentioned the care and caution of the two Sheikhs in their investigation and selection of authentic hadith, but did not call it "conclusive" as the Ahl al-Ishraq have written, upon which their entire objection is based. Consider the wording of the explanation: we wrote regarding the majority that the munn'an narrations of the mudallis in the Sahihayn are understood by the majority as based on sama'. Indeed, in the explanation, we have refuted those who claim the "agreement" of the muhaddithin on this position, the full details of which can be seen in
Reference: Tawdhih al-Kalam (pp.297-302 vol.2)
. And in Al-I'tisam, we also stated that among the muhaddithin it is almost settled that the munn'an narrations of the mudallis in the Sahihayn are to be understood as based on sama'.
Reference: (Haft Rozah Al-I'tisam 58: 29/14)
Here too, the word "almost" indicates that this principle is not unanimously agreed upon, but is accepted by the majority and the general consensus.
Secondly: The objection based on Hisham in the narration under discussion is itself incorrect, because firstly Hisham is not a mudallis. We have already stated that
Reference: Al-Ma'rifah by Al-Hakim (p.103)
the narration of Imam Yahya al-Qattan, may Allah have mercy on him, cited is not authentic in its chain. Hafiz Salahuddin Kaykaldhi al-Alai, may Allah have mercy on him, after narrating this incident clearly wrote: [في جعل هشام بمجرد هذا مدلسا نظر ولم أر من وصفه به] It is questionable to call Hisham a mudallis based on this incident alone; I have not seen anyone call him a mudallis.
Reference: (Jami' al-Tahsil: p.128)
Hafiz al-Alai, may Allah have mercy on him, also narrated the same from
Reference: Al-Tibyan li Asma' al-Mudallisin (No. 90)
, thereby apparently endorsing that no one called Hisham a mudallis. However, Allama Ibn al-'Iraqi, based on the statement of Imam Ya'qub ibn Shaybah, called Hisham a mudallis, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, also mentioned Hisham in the first category of the Tabaqat al-Mudallisin. This statement, cited in
Reference: Ishraq April 2006
with reference to
Reference: Tahdhib (p.50 vol.11)
, says that after going to Iraq, Hisham became careless in narrating from his father, which caused the people of his city to object to him. In our opinion, Hisham gave the people of Iraq the impression that he only narrated from his father those hadith which he had heard from him, but his carelessness was that he also narrated from his father hadith which he had not heard directly but indirectly.However, Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, clarified in
Reference: Muqaddimah Sahih Muslim (p.22)
that muhaddithin sometimes narrate hadith mursal (with omission of the immediate narrator) and do not mention the name of the person from whom they heard the hadith, and sometimes narrate the full chain as they heard it. Among the examples he mentioned, he also referred to the narration of Hisham ibn 'Urwah. For example, Ayyub al-Sakhtiyani, Ibn Mubarak, Waki', Ibn Numayr, and a group narrate from Hisham from his father from Aisha the narration that she used to apply the best perfume to the Prophet ﷺ when entering and leaving Ihram. The same narration is narrated from Hisham by Layth ibn Sa'd, Dawud al-'Attar, Humayd ibn al-Aswad, Wahib ibn Khalid, and Abu Usamah. Similarly, from Hisham from his father from Aisha that when the Prophet ﷺ was in I'tikaf, he would incline his head towards me and I would comb his blessed head even though I was menstruating. Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, narrated this from az-Zuhri, who narrated it from عروہ عن عمرۃ عن عائشہ. From such examples, Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, proved that this is a case of mursal and muttasil (connected) narration; in a state of joy and satisfaction, the muhaddith narrates the full connected chain, and sometimes narrates it mursal by omitting the intermediary. Thus, he indicated that such narrations of Hisham are not due to tadlis (concealment) but are cases of mursal and muttasil. In these narrations, it is also possible that Hisham first heard it indirectly from Uthman, then directly from 'Urwah, or 'Urwah heard it indirectly from 'Umrah, then directly from Aisha (RA). But Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, says here it is a case of muttasil and mursal. Both narrators of the chains are great imams; their error is not possible, and such "trustworthy muhaddithin" and "imams of knowledge" do this, and no problem arises in the text.Imam Muslim's mention of this discussion regarding mursal narrations is evidence that he too does not consider Hisham a mudallis based on such narrations. Imam Darqutni, may Allah have mercy on him, also attributed such narrations of Hisham to joy and relaxation, not to tadlis. Note that
Reference: Al-'Ilal (p.317 vol.15)
Imam Ahmad also stated this earlier.
Reference: (Sharh 'Ilal al-Tirmidhi by Ibn Rajab: p.679 vol.2)
Allama Abdul Rahman al-Mu'allimi also said in
Reference: Al-Tankil (pp.517-518 vol.1)
that Hisham is not a mudallis.Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, also used the statement of Ibn Khurash to argue about Hisham's tadlis. However, Ibn Khurash, whose name is Abdul Rahman ibn Yusuf ibn Khurash, was refuted by Allama adh-Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him, in
Reference: Mizan (p.302 vol.4)
by rejecting the statement of Ibn Qattan, saying [وكذا قول عبد الرحمن بن خراش], thus refuting this statement as well. The scholars of the field did not rely on his criticism, as Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned in Hadi as-Sari in the biographies of Sulaiman ibn Dawud al-'Ataki, Musa ibn Ismail at-Tabudhki, and Hafiz adh-Dhahabi in Al-Mizan in the biographies of Ahmad ibn 'Abdah and Abu Sulaymah Musa ibn Ismail. Sheikh Abu Ghuddah also clarified this fact in the footnotes of
Reference: Ar-Raf' wa At-Takmil (pp.268-269)
. Therefore, it is not correct to call Hisham a mudallis based on this statement. Even if it is considered authentic, the discussion on the narration of the two narrators in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim itself contradicts Ibn Khurash's position, because he said that in the last days in Kufa, Waki', Ibn Numayr, and Muhadhir heard from Hisham, but this narration is not narrated from any of these three, so criticism based on Ibn Khurash's statement is mere childish consolation and ignorance of principles.Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, undoubtedly mentioned Hisham ibn 'Urwah in Tabaqat al-Mudallisin, and in
Reference: Taqrib at-Tahdhib (p.533)
he said [ربما دلس], but this statement is questionable. Rather, in Tabaqat al-Mudallisin, what he said: [ذكر بذلك أبو الحسن بن القطان وأنكره الذهبي، وابن القطان معذور فإن الحكاية المشهورة عنه أنه قدم العراق ثلاث مرات .الخ] that Ibn Qattan mentioned him with tadlis, but Allama adh-Dhahabi denied it, and Ibn Qattan is excused because the story is famous that Hisham went to Iraq three times.It is not correct; Allama Ibn Qattan never called Hisham a mudallis, nor did Allama adh-Dhahabi deny this from him. Rather, Allama Ibn Qattan called Hisham a mukhtalit (mixed) as stated in
Reference: Al-Wahm wal-Ihyam (p.504 vol.5 no.2726)
. Allama adh-Dhahabi strongly refuted this. See:
Reference: Naqd al-Imam adh-Dhahabi li Bayan al-Wahm wal-Ihyam (p.126 no.85 Mizan al-I'tidal: pp.301-302 vol.4, Siyar A'lam an-Nubala: pp.35-36 vol.6)
. Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, also said that he did not hear anything about Hisham's change.
Reference: (Sharh al-'Ilal by Ibn Rajab: p.679 vol.1)
. Even Hafiz Ibn Hajar himself narrated the statement of Allama Ibn Qattan about mixing and refuted it. His words are: [قال أبو الحسن بن قطان تغير قبل موته ولم نره له في ذلك سلفا] that Abu al-Hasan ibn Qattan said that Hisham changed before his death, but we do not see any predecessor who called Hisham mixed or changed.
Reference: (At-Tahdhib: p.51 vol.11)
Ibn Qattan's statement about tadlis is not narrated anywhere by Hafiz Ibn Hajar, so attributing tadlis to Hisham based on Ibn Qattan and then citing Allama adh-Dhahabi's refutation is not correct.
However, based on the statements of Imam Ya'qub ibn Shaybah and Ibn Khurash, they said [هذا هو التدليس] this is tadlis, but we have already clarified their statements. Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, attributed this case to mursal and muttasil, not tadlis, because Hisham is not a mudallis. By referring to such narrations of Hisham in the discussion of munn'an narrations, he proved that trustworthy narrators narrate from their teachers even those narrations which they have not heard directly, yet muhaddithin accept their 'an'anah (continuous transmission). Obviously, if they were mudallis, how could their 'an'anah be accepted? Therefore, calling Hisham a mudallis based on the statements of Imam Ya'qub and Ibn Khurash is not correct.
Moreover, if Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned Hisham in Tabaqat al-Mudallisin, then according to the categories he described, Hisham is mentioned in the first category, about which he says: [الأولى من لم يوصف بذلك إلا نادراً] that the first category is those who are rarely attributed tadlis.
Rather, he also counted Hisham in the first category in Al-Nukat 'ala Kitab Ibn as-Salah, about whom he himself clarified:
[الأولى: من لم يوصف بذلك إلا نادرا، وغالب رواياتهم مصرحة بالسماع، والغالب أن إطلاق من أطلق ذلك عليهم فيه تجوز من الإرسال إلى التدليس، ومنهم من يطلق ذلك بناء على الظن، ويكون التحقيق بخلافه. الخ]
The first degree: those who are rarely and unusually called mudallis, and most of their narrations have explicit sama', and most of those who called them mudallis did so by allowing mursal narrations, and among them are those who were called mudallis merely on suspicion, and research and reality are against it.
Reference: (An-Nukat: pp.636-637 vol.2)
عثمان بن عروہ عن عروہ عن عائشہ
Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, also supports this by stating that Hisham is not a terminological mudallis, nor have the earlier muhaddithin objected to his ‘an‘anah. Therefore, Ishraq’s objection based on Hisham’s mu‘anna‘an narration is not correct; rather, their claim "Lan Tarani" is a case of shooting oneself in the foot, because other instances where the trust or attention to the two Shaykhs was lacking and thus not discussed by the muhaddithin, considering the continuity as final is merely wishful thinking and blind imitation.
Reference: (Ishraq: p.31 September 2006)
In other words, for almost eleven hundred years, as a result of trust in the two Shaykhs, this narration was not discussed by the muhaddithin. This honor and distinction has come to those "researchers" associated with Ishraq, and now this secret is revealed to them that this narration is unreliable due to Hisham’s tadlis. سبحان اللہ Such distortion of the Salaf of the Ummah is the "badge of honor" of Ishraq’s circle of devotion, to the extent that even the sources of Shariah for this circle are contrary to the Salaf of the Ummah. The noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, understood and acted upon the issue from the Holy Quran, but according to these people, that is not correct. The noble Companions considered music and musical instruments forbidden from the Quran, but according to these people, the Quran is silent on this matter.
Reference: (Ishraq)
The noble Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, upon hearing the command [فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُنْتَهُونَ] cried out [انتھینا انتھینا], but our "intellectuals" and the people of Ishraq do not see this prohibition in the Quran. Accordingly, one intellectual of this circle, Mr. Abdul Basit, in response to a question about alcohol, states:
In our previous answer, we did not use the word "disliked" as a technical term in contrast to prohibition; rather, it was meant to clarify that drinking alcohol is not among the legal prohibitions, but rather it is among the more fundamental, i.e., natural prohibitions. You (the questioner) said that our opinion is against the texts of Shariah; if you present any verse of the Quran in which Allah Almighty has explicitly declared alcohol forbidden in clear words, then we will have no hesitation in retracting our opinion.
Reference: (Bihawala Al-Shari’ah: p.37 February 2007)
There are many such issues in which these people have taken a path separate from the Salaf of the Ummah. Therefore, if these people object to a hadith from Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, which the Ummah has accepted as authentic and used as evidence for eleven hundred years, then what is surprising about that?
Whereas what Imam Ya‘qub bin Shaybah and others have stated—you have read that Imam Muslim, may Allah have mercy on him, expressed the same point in his style and rejected objections to Hisham’s mu‘anna‘an narrations because they are not terminological mudallis. Moreover, it is not that this revelation has now come to the people of Ishraq; rather, from Hafiz Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him, to Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, it has been written in the books of history and biographies, yet no one has criticized the narrations of Hisham in the Sahihayn.
Therefore, the claim of the people of Ishraq that this narration was not discussed by the muhaddithin due to lack of attention and warning is equivalent to shooting oneself in the foot. When Hisham’s style was discussed among the muhaddithin, then what meaning does the lack of "attention and warning" have afterward?
Rather, we have stated that if this story about Hisham is accepted, then it itself clarifies that those who heard from Hisham in that era [وکیع، ابنِ نمیر اور محاضر] were present, but the narration in Bukhari and Muslim was not narrated by those students of Hisham, so criticism and objection to it is baseless and a failed attempt to satisfy oneself.
